Search results

In 1987, the City of Los Angeles instituted the first gang injunction in the country. Gang injunctions are pursued through the civil courts to seriously restrict the activities and movement of suspected gang members and affiliates. People who have been served with a gang injunction are often prohibited from everyday activities, such as wearing sports jerseys, talking to other gang members, and being out in public past curfew, regardless of age. Though often justified by law enforcement as a necessary tool to fight gang violence, we argue that gang injunctions are similar to Slave Codes, Black Codes, and Jim Crow laws, which established a separate system of justice based on race. As such, gang injunctions serve as an extension of an apartheid-like system of justice that seriously limits the life opportunities of people of color within gang injunction territories.

This chapter draws upon the oral histories of people targeted by gang injunction laws within California, paying particular attention to how gang-identified individuals are surveiled, controlled, and confined.

Gang injunctions operate on an apartheid-like justice system that punishes perceived gang members harsher than non-gang members. These laws affirm the legal tactics that maintain racial boundaries and promote a system of justice that mirrors the Black Codes following the end of slavery. The evidence suggests that gang injunctions solely target low-income youth of color, who have been identified as gang members and served with injunctions.

Despite the ubiquity of gang injunctions within California, there is little research on gang injunctions, and even less literature on how these injunctions shape the life course of suspected gang members. We attempt to address this gap in the literature by showing how gang injunctions are not simply about fighting crime, but rather they are a tool used to control and corral communities of color.

Young people in rural areas often face barriers when accessing participation opportunities in their municipalities. This affects their voices being heard and their ability to create change. Even though almost half the world’s population lives in rural areas, rural young people’s activism is often overlooked in the literature. In addition, when young people’s activism is explored in empirical research, conceptualisations of activism and methods are often not tailored to rural areas. This chapter, thus, adds to our understanding of young people’s activism in rural municipalities by drawing on a mixed methods case study including thirteen focus groups (FGs; n = 35) and a questionnaire (n = 106) with young people aged 13–17, and semi-structured interviews (n = 11) with teachers from one secondary school in a rural municipality in Germany. Five of the FGs were conducted and analysed by Year 10 students, adding unique insights into participants’ experience of activism. In this chapter, activism is conceptualised as one of the multiple dimensions of citizenship. Activism includes demanding systemic change, individually or collectively, which may include refusing to do things, aiming to prevent laws, raising awareness, and making consumer choices. Rather than being full-time activists, the young people in this study were engaged in only a few forms of activism, often carried out ad-hoc, part-time and in connection with other citizenship activities such as volunteering. Spaces for activism included online, the local municipality, everyday spaces such as the supermarket, and school. Participants experienced multiple barriers when engaging in activism including narratives of non-activist young people, age restrictions, power imbalances and few opportunities for creating change, particularly at participants’ school and in their municipalities.

This chapter focuses on the Trump administration's health policies, with an emphasis on its efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act and its response to the COVID-19 pandemic. It assesses those policies both in the context of the administration's broader goals and motivations, and in the context of systemic deficits and deficiencies in American health policy. I argue that failures of health policy and health security in the face of the pandemic reflect those longstanding weaknesses, much more so than the administration's actions (or inaction).

Like language, the law is an instrument – a tool – for the accomplishment of certain purposes. The idealized understanding insisted that the law is, if not divinely inspired, the empirical manifestation of received wisdom and truth. On this view the law is crafted to produce ideal outcomes. Richard Posner once insisted that the law was purposefully crafted to achieve economic efficiency (1973).¹ Warren Samuels reminded us that the law is an instrument to get one's way. The interesting question, therefore, concerns who is able to control this valuable instrument? Sometimes good and noble people wield the tool. At other times nefarious forces prevail. Samuels presented his vision of the law by means of a Virginia statute concerning an obscure pest known as Cedar Rust (Samuels, 1971). As it happens, Virginia apple growers were able to wield the tool – saws and axes – against red cedar trees which serve as an intermediate host for a fungus detrimental to apple trees. Small spores make for large debates.

Moralized markets are economic markets in which moral aspects are explicitly used to legitimize decisions. Companies involved in such markets have to cope simultaneously with opposing logics: While they strive for economic growth, their existence is bound to their moral integrity, too. This chapter investigates how ecopreneurs manage this inherent conflict of moralized markets. Based on interviews, documentary analysis and sample purchases, an empirical case study highlights the example of well-renowned ecopreneurial dairies distributing their milk via ecologically disreputable discount stores. By looking into the related struggle between moral and economic expectations, the chapter sheds light on one particular coping strategy: The tacit creation and maintenance of separate fields for moral and economic logics. This strategy of fragmentation is referred to as ‘double game.’ The study emanates from competing logics approaches to hybrid organizations by adopting a field theoretical, Bourdieusian perspective. Its explicit focus on opposing logics and on coping strategies that go beyond reconciliation opens up new perspectives for both sustainability and organization studies.

This chapter examines the UK and the Nigerian approach to reducing emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the environment as a result of gas flaring utilising the market-based regulation. Determining how different jurisdictions fare in the quest to reduce GHG emissions associated with the oil and gas industry is essential because: policy makers have realised the advantages of market-based regulation over the command-and-control regulation; and in the light of various pledges different countries have made in different forum to reduce the emission of GHGs, particularly in the wake of the recently held Paris climate change conference.

Library-based approach is used, providing conceptual and theoretical understanding of climate change, GHG emissions and various market-based regulatory tools utilised in the United Kingdom and Nigeria in regulating emission associated with operations in the oil and gas industry.

The study reveals the significance of environmental regulations that encourage region integration and flexibility in the implementation of environmental policies. Moreover, it finds that the Paris Agreement re-affirms the utilisation of market-based regulations and indicates a future for investment in the oil and gas industry.

The study revealed that there are lacunas in regulations and strategies for the implementation of environmental regulations which need to be addressed in order to achieve zero or a significant decrease in gas flaring.

This study provided an ample opportunity to theoretically examine market-based regulatory tools utilised in the oil and gas industry in a developed country in relation to a developing country.

James March's highly influential article on organisational learning underpins the studies of exploration and exploitation collected in this issue. What is less well known is that March's article, which is based on a computer simulation of collective and individual learning, reflects a real-life experiment in exploration and exploitation that he, in large part, designed and conducted when he was the new ‘boy Dean’ of the School of Social Sciences in the University of California at Irvine between 1964 and 1969. This chapter tells this story and then uses it to critique March's original model. It argues that March's model, which was probably the first simulation of an organisation learning, worked to constitute rather than model the phenomenon of organisational learning. The Irvine story is also important because it provides the context for what constitutes knowledge in organisation theory, and because it highlights the personal trauma and distress that can accompany the creative play of exploration.